Toni Lavis,

The OP did refer to the US.

You can feel safe because community-minded men and women are prepared to undertake roles that place them at risk. There is no need to disparage them as 'macho'.

Your claim has already been refuted by the example of the Gold Coast police dog handler who was shot in the face, but still managed to fire his side arm causing the cowardly offenders to break off their attack. Or would you like to speculate that he would have been more 'effective' without his firearm?

Before you get around to quoting Professor Alpers and (Soros's) 'gun control' you could do all a service by detailing any relevant academic qualifications Adjunct Professor Alpers might have. Make that ANY academic qualifications where Alpers is concerned. You might also give the source of his funding, criticism of his previous 'research findings' and his relationship, if any, with the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens.

For myself, I agree with the policy of the State and federal parliaments that require police to carry specific equipment which may include a firearm to successfully fulfill their duties. No sense in a firefighter turning up without necessary gear and the same applies to police. Then it is policy, training and judgement that rightfully decides the course of action.

Of course Australia doesn't yet have the social problems of the US and it seems as though the UK is finally stepping in the right direction after witnessing what is happening France, Sweden, Germany and elsewhere.

Your 'No (police)guns, no violent crime' is an oversimplification and ducks the thorny nettle of social contributors and the downsides of leftist 'Progressive' social engineering, for instance, endless diversity and multicultural policies.

"Surveys by the Police Federation of England and Wales have continued to show police officers' considerable resistance to routine arming. In the Federation's most recent (2006) Officer/Arming survey, 82% of respondents were against the routine arming of police"
Wikipedia

SteeleRedux,

You should do other posters the politeness of reading previous posts before leaping in.

Suffice it to say however that Australia decides its own policies. Use Google and you will find plenty of informed discussion on the reasons for the standard issue of their equipment.

Why Australia should not be copy-catting decisions of UK politicians,

<Myleene Klass warned by police after waving 'illegal' kitchen knife at intruders in her garden

Myleene Klass was told off by police for waving a knife through her window to scare off two teenagers trying to break into her garden shed.

The musician was alone in her kitchen, with her two-year-old daughter asleep upstairs, when she grabbed the knife and shouted 'I'm calling the police'.

Officers who arrived at her house in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, on Friday warned her that it was illegal to carry an 'offensive weapon' even at home.>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242040/Myleene-Klass-warned-police-waving-illegal-kitchen-knife-intruders-garden.html

If she had been assaulted or killed in her home the police would have arrived too late anyhow. But 'Don't you wave that bread knife or you will be arrested".

That is the example you'd like followed? What a joke.

Is it time to take guns away from police?

It certainly is, If cops did not have guns the citizens would fear the motives of their govt less. The anti gun debate is only about taking guns away from the citizens. The debate is not about taking guns away from the state and also from the citizens. note the difference

"Is it time to take guns away from police?

It certainly is, If cops did not have guns the citizens would fear the motives of their govt less. The anti gun debate is only about taking guns away from the citizens. The debate is not about taking guns away from the state and also from the citizens. note the difference
Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Sunday, 10 July 2016 8:56:21 PM"

Only my innate politeness stops me from making a rude remark.

//Before you get around to quoting Professor Alpers and (Soros's) 'gun control' you could do all a service by detailing any relevant academic qualifications Adjunct Professor Alpers might have. Make that ANY academic qualifications where Alpers is concerned. You might also give the source of his funding, criticism of his previous 'research findings' and his relationship, if any, with the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens.//

I haven't mentioned Professor Alpers, Soros, or the NSW Greens.

Why do you persist in attacking strawmen? Is it too hard for you to attack the arguments that I've actually made?

//Your 'No (police)guns, no violent crime' is an oversimplification//

And a strawman.